DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 11 are pending in the present application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recited the limitation “calculating a parameter using a centrifugal force of a fluid flowing inside a heat exchanger” (emphasis added) in lines 2-3 and 8-9 respectively.
This limitation has as least two possible meanings. 1) the centrifugal force could be an input value that is measured, obtained or otherwise entered into the parameter calculation. OR 2) an applied centrifugal force could be part of the parameter calculation in that a force creating centrifuge is used to create conditions for a thermal measurement or the like (e.g. measuring ice adhesion with a heat exchange mechanism or analyte spinning during testing of phase changes etc.).
Based on the specification the first meaning will be considered (see at least instant publication at [0003] and [0042]).
As such the term will be considered as “calculating a parameter based on a centrifugal force value of a fluid flowing inside a heat exchanger” or the like.
However, positive in claim clarification of the metes and bounds applicant intends to limit by is required.
Claims 2-10 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Further, claim 11 recites the limitation "a heat exchanger" in both lines 1-2 and lines 8-9, creating an antecedent basis issue for the second limitation in the claim.
Specifically, it is unclear if there are one or two heat exchangers being referenced.
As best understood, there is a single heat exchanger being referenced and the second instance of “a heat exchanger” will be considered as “the heat exchanger” or the like.
However, positive in claim recitation of proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar (US 7542885) in view of Duan et al. (US 20240184844; hereinafter Duan).
Regarding claim 1, (as best understood; see 112(b) section above) Majumdar teaches a method of analyzing convective heat transfer (see at least abstract; please note that “conjugate heat transfer” analysis is the simultaneous analysis of heat transfer in solids and fluids, capturing the interaction between conduction in solids and convection in fluids), the method comprising:
calculating a parameter using a centrifugal force (col. 1, line 65 to col. 2, line 8 teaching regarding calculating / modeling / simulating interrelated fluid parameters including centrifugal forces; see also abstract teaching “modeling … external body forces such as gravity and centrifugal force and conjugate heat transfer”) of a fluid flowing (see at least abstract and col. 1, ¶ at 33 teaching regarding the fluid flow network); and
analyzing convective heat transfer through a relational expression using the parameter (col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 8 teaches that the centrifugal forces/effects are part of the model equations; see col. 14, ¶’s at 13 and 40 describing the solving of the simultaneous equations and the solver can calculate “conjugate heat transfer in a fluid network”; see fig. 12; see also abstract).
Majumdar does not directly and specifically state that the fluid is flowing inside a heat exchanger and that the analysis is performed inside the heat exchanger (teaching a more generic “complex fluid network” – abstract; with calculations via a “Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP)” – col. 1, lines 65-66).
However, Duan teaches a method “for predicting heat exchanger performance” (abstract) with a model calculation result “determining a comprehensive heat transfer factor” (abstract) taking into consideration at least “centrifugal force acting on the water phase” ([0086]) and obtaining at least a “local convective heat transfer coefficient” ([0098]; see also figs. 6A-B).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method for simulating conjugate / convective heat transfer in fluid analysis of a complex fluid network of Majumdar with the specific knowledge of the heat exchanger which is modeled for convective heat transfer of Duan. This is because such specific use in a heat exchanger allows for determining the convective heat transfer effects from data to include the centrifugal forces therein. This is important in order to provide an end user accurate data related to the heat exchanger structure(s).
Regarding claim 10, Majumdar teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions (col. 4, ¶ at 31; col. 7, ¶ at 13; see also fig. 2 including at least elements 206 (RAM); 208 (ROM) and 210) that, when executed by a processor (col. 4, ¶ at 31; col. 7, ¶ at 13; see also fig. 2 including at least element 204; see also 228 and col. 8, lines 40-43), cause the processor to perform (col. 4, ¶ at 31; see also col. 6, ¶ at 54) the method of claim 1 (see treatment of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, (as best understood; see 112(b) section above) Majumdar teaches an apparatus for analyzing convective heat transfer (see at least abstract; please note that “conjugate heat transfer” analysis is the simultaneous analysis of heat transfer in solids and fluids, capturing the interaction between conduction in solids and convection in fluids), the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store one or more instructions (col. 4, ¶ at 31; col. 7, ¶ at 13; see also fig. 2 including at least elements 206 (RAM); 208 (ROM) and 210); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions (col. 4, ¶ at 31; col. 7, ¶ at 13; see also fig. 2 including at least element 204; see also 228 and col. 8, lines 40-43),
wherein, when the one or more instructions are executed, the processor is configured to perform a plurality of operations (col. 4, ¶ at 31; see also col. 6, ¶ at 54), and
wherein the plurality of operations comprises:
calculating a parameter using a centrifugal force (col. 1, line 65 to col. 2, line 8 teaching regarding calculating / modeling / simulating interrelated fluid parameters including centrifugal forces; see also abstract teaching “modeling … external body forces such as gravity and centrifugal force and conjugate heat transfer”) of a fluid flowing (see at least abstract and col. 1, ¶ at 33 teaching regarding the fluid flow network); and
analyzing convective heat transfer through a relational expression using the parameter (col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 8 teaches that the centrifugal forces/effects are part of the model equations; see col. 14, ¶’s at 13 and 40 describing the solving of the simultaneous equations and the solver can calculate “conjugate heat transfer in a fluid network”; see fig. 12; see also abstract).
Majumdar does not directly and specifically state that the fluid is flowing inside a heat exchanger and that the analysis is performed inside the heat exchanger (teaching a more generic “complex fluid network” – abstract; with calculations via a “Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP)” – col. 1, lines 65-66).
However, Duan teaches a system “for predicting heat exchanger performance” (abstract) with a model calculation result “determining a comprehensive heat transfer factor” (abstract) taking into consideration at least “centrifugal force acting on the water phase” ([0086]) and obtaining at least a “local convective heat transfer coefficient” ([0098]; see also figs. 6A-B).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus for simulating conjugate / convective heat transfer in fluid analysis of a complex fluid network of Majumdar with the specific knowledge of the heat exchanger which is modeled for convective heat transfer of Duan. This is because such specific use in a heat exchanger allows for determining the convective heat transfer effects from data to include the centrifugal forces therein. This is important in order to provide an end user accurate data related to the heat exchanger structure(s).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar (US 7542885) in view of Duan et al. (US 20240184844; hereinafter Duan) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lothe (US 20050039800).
Regarding claim 2, Majumdar in view of Duan teaches that the parameter is a first dimensionless number of the fluid flowing inside the heat exchanger (see col. 9, ¶ at 22 of Majumdar teaching that the parameters may include the (dimensionless) Reynolds Number; see also Duan’s abstract regarding the (dimensionless) Nusselt number; see also Duan at [0013] and following equations teaching regarding “determining a comprehensive heat transfer factor according to the Nusselt number and the Fanning friction factor, wherein the comprehensive heat transfer factor is used to evaluate heat transfer performance of the heat exchanger”).
Majumdar in view of Duan does not directly and specifically state that the first dimensionless number is defined as centrifugal force relative to gravity.
However, Lothe teaches a helical flow pattern ([0024]; see fig. 1) and experiments based on the fluid flow include the (dimensionless) Frode number (see [0007-14] including that “The so-called Froude number is known from the theory of the hydraulics of open channels. The Froude number B, which is dimensionless, is defined as a ratio between the force of inertia and the force of gravity acting on a fluid” [0010]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the use of dimensionless numbers known to be useful in fluid dynamics for determining information regarding fluid flow in a heat exchanger of Majumdar in view of Duan with the specific knowledge of using the Frode number for helical flows of Lothe. This is because the dimensionless parameter as a Frode number is known in the theory of the hydraulics (see Lothe at [0013]) and allows for understanding the ratio of inertial forces such as the centrifugal force and gravitational force as they apply to pressures in helical columns of fluid (see Lothe at [0009]). This is important in order to optimize and understand fluidic flows in helical channels.
Regarding claim 9, Majumdar in view of Duan does not directly and specifically state regarding that the heat exchanger comprises a helical coil heat transfer tube or a straight heat transfer tube.
However, Lothe teaches a helical flow coiling pattern ([0024]; see fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify flow of Majumdar in view of Duan with the specific knowledge of using helical flow pattern of Lothe. This is because a helical flow pattern allows for controlling the pressures of the flow (see at least [0009] of Lothe). This is important in order to improve fluidic flow pressures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As best understood, the best prior art of record Majumdar (US 7542885), Duan et al. (US 20240184844) and Lothe (US 20050039800), fail to specifically teach the invention as claimed.
The limitations in independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 when combined with the specific limitations regarding the calculations and equations regarding the fluid in the heat exchanger in dependent claims 3 and 6 respectively distinguish the present invention from the combined prior art.
Hence the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 3-8. The examiner cannot find specific teaching of the invention, nor reasons within the cited art to combine the elements of these references other than applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
See especially:
Prasad Nigam (US 20060162912); see abstract, [0065] and analysis regarding Dean numbers in helical heat exchanger tubes varying with gravity and density; see figs. 1B, 7 and 8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights